Dear Dr. Reider,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 08 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols....

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Renato Filogonio

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The current research was funded by a grant by the James S. McDonnell Foundation to PI LoBue.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

I agree with the reviewer's assessment that the table and figure captions need to be more informative (see below). Additionally, I think that the 'y' axis from the figures is a little misleading, so perhaps discerning that those are 'scores' would be more informative. Finally, I think that it would be beneficial if the authors explained the difference between 'fear levels' and the 'willingness to approach the animal', as described in the Material and Methods (line 250). As it is, those measurements seem redundant (that is, the more a person fears an animal, the less willing that person is to approach that animal).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The present manuscript examines how parent-child conversations about different animals might shape children’s fear beliefs in the United States and Hong Kong. The study recruited 62 dyads with a 4- to 6-year-old child across the two countries. They found that parents and children had more negative conversations about spiders and snakes than turtles and lizards, suggesting that these conversations might predict fear beliefs (as those were also the animals people feared the most). There was no concurrent relation between fear beliefs and conversation affect. The study was pre-registered, although an entire location was excluded from data collection due to logistical considerations. The study is, for the most part, methodologically sound, and the data are interpreted accurately. Below, I include some comments I hope will strengthen the manuscript.

1. One aspect that the manuscript could pay more attention to is the familiarity of the animal species. The manuscript details how US parents recognized more animals than Hong Kong parents, but does not connect this to the habitat of those animals. For example, garter and bull snakes, brown recluse spiders, Gila monsters, and alligator snapping turtles are found in North America, potentially making them more familiar to participants from the United States. Jumping spiders and skinks are found worldwide and thus potentially common for all participants. But only the king cobra was native to Hong Kong. This familiarity could influence the results and the conversations that parents and children had. For example, the greater familiarity could explain the difference between the US and Hong Kong in fear beliefs.

2. The authors discuss in their introduction how exposure to venomous snakes is not even throughout the world. One point that could be highlighted more is that even within a country, there is unevenness in terms of who is at greater risk of coming into contact with these animals. This is of particular importance because the sample characteristics suggest that the families that participated in this study are likely at a low risk, as they are mostly in urban areas. Additionally, recruiting participants in Hong Kong through an eco-tourism company might have also influenced the results.

3. I also wonder if children’s experiences with nature are related to their fear beliefs or their negative talk.

4. I think the manuscript could provide a greater rationale for why the 4- to 6-year-old age range was selected for this study. Why are these ages interesting for the development of fear beliefs or to examine conversations?

5. I also believe the authors can discuss more about how, in their sample, negative talk was not related to children’s fear beliefs. Given that it was argued that these conversations are one mechanism for the development of these fears, how does this lack of an association change our understanding (or not) of how these fears develop? Are these fear beliefs malleable enough that we should expect changes after one book reading session?

Reviewer #2: The topic of the study is very interesting, and research in this area is always recommended. However, I believe the manuscript could be improved in terms of fluency and theoretical grounding, in order to make it suitable for publication in this journal.

Below are some suggestions.

1 - Introduction: Overall, I suggest a revision of the introduction. The information presented is interesting, but it could be written more concisely. Some sentences that link to subsequent statements could be shortened rather than maintaining multiple long, similar sentences. Additionally, I recommend a clearer separation between the topics of spiders and snakes. At times, the information on spiders and snakes is so intermixed that it seems mistaken.

2- Line 50: Please provide the source for this information and include appropriate references. This information may also vary across cultural contexts (e.g., Eastern and Western cultures).

3- Line 64 - reference 8: Is an article focused on snakes the most appropriate reference for a global discussion of venomous spiders?

4- Line 64: It lacks a better connection between sentences.

5- Line 73-75: However, the geography of each region should also be considered, as rural areas exhibit higher encounter rates than urban areas. This may serve as a counterargument to using the mean as a representative value

6- Line 91-92: These data are interesting, as these other animals are also not grouped into the cute or charismatic fauna.

7- Line 132-136: It is worth providing a more focused explanation of why these two countries were selected.

8- Line 153-155: Please re-order. These should be final sentences of the section.

9- Line 158: Collected how?

10- Line 164: If it’s just one, you can specify what it is

11- Line 212-215: It would be helpful to include a link or a screenshot of the page for better understanding

12- Table 1: The table caption is ambiguous, as it is unclear whether ‘threat relevance’ refers to conservation status or to the potential threat posed to humans.

The caption should be self-explanatory

13- Table 4: The caption could be improved by including additional information, such as the total number of participants in each case.

14- Line 436: Caption can be improved

15- Line 447: Same comment

16- Tables and figures in general: I recommend revision and improvement of all the captions. Subtitles must be informative on their own

17- Line 574-577: In my opinion, many parts of the Results section could be rewritten in a more fluid way. For example, in this case, the comparison could be presented using a linear order of fear, rather than repeating each item one by one.

18- Line 638-643: It is possible that I am missing a distinction here, but this passage appears repetitive, as similar comparisons are presented across consecutive sentences.

19- Line 646-660: Regarding the conclusion of this paragraph, I have a few concerns. First, the greater access to and knowledge of animals reported for U.S. parents may also reflect cultural and/or socioeconomic differences between sites, which are not explicitly discussed. Second, such cultural factors could influence attitudes toward reptiles for both parents and children. Finally, it is possible that I am misunderstanding the argument, but the last sentence may be somewhat confusing: while it suggests that greater experience and knowledge among U.S. parents is associated with lower fear, the comparison with children could give the opposite impression. To avoid this potential confusion, this might be a good place to discuss the transmission of knowledge, attitudes, and fear from parents to children, and how these relationships may shape children’s responses.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes:David MenendezDavid MenendezDavid MenendezDavid Menendez

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-55348_reviewer.pdf

From Words to Worries: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Parent-Child Conversations About Snakes in Early Childhood

PONE-D-25-55348R1

Dear Dr. Reider,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support....

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Renato Filogonio

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all of my comments from my previous review, and I do not have any further comments.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes:David MenendezDavid MenendezDavid MenendezDavid Menendez

**********